Theology of Missions

INTRODUCTION
The Church today, at least in America, is conflicted about missions. Distinctions are argued between the terms, “mission” and “missions.”[1] In their book, Introducing the Missional Church: What it is, Why it Matters, How to Become One, Roxburgh and Boren spend an entire chapter explaining how and why the term “missional” cannot be defined.2 Some argue that the American Church is becoming inward focused, moving away from local and overseas missions in both sending qualified people and support. Many Christians avoid sharing their faith at home, let alone engage in missionary work beyond the borders of their suburbs. Could a move away from missionary work throughout the world be a result of the Church simply checking out of these theoretical and philosophical arguments? Or might it be that the Body of Christ in the United States is not educated about God’s Word regarding missions? This paper will argue that the problem is a checking out due to a lack of understanding. Therefore, a survey of missions found in the Old and New Testaments will precede a discussion of the theology of missions

MISSIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Church’s mission, or the idea that God’s people are to engage in missions,3 finds it start the moment Adam and Eve (after listening to the serpent) decided to rebel against God’s single prohibition in the Garden of Eden.4 As Moreau, Corwin, and McGee state, “As a result of their blatant denial of respect for their creator; God judges them and the serpent.”[5] God’s instruction to Adam (written in Genesis 2:17) indicated that the consequence of violating God’s command was death that very day. Yet, when the first sin accrued, neither Adam nor Eve fell down physically dead. Neither does God completely cast off humanity in judgment without a picture of his love for future humankind or his plan of redemption. On this matter Calvin writes, “For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy.”[6] Genesis provides the first hint of this supervening grace when God says to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”[7] Moreau, Corwin, and McGee call this hint the “initial promise of salvation, knows as the protoevangelium.”[8]

As the meta-narrative advances deeper into the Old Testament, God calls upon Abraham. Genesis 12:1-3 records this contact, which ends with an indication of the necessity of missions and a forthcoming redemption. Verse 3 states in part, “. . . in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”[9] While not entirely clear at that point how all the families of the earth would be blessed, New Testament readers sit at a vantage point that affords them the ability to see this promise come to fruition. On numerous occasions, Old Testament writers look forward to this redemption, but they also serve as God’s agents to bring about his revelation of himself to other people groups. Leviticus 19:33 indicates that decedents of Abraham, the Israelites, were to love foreigners as much as the loved themselves. Kings 8:41-43 outlines how the Israelites were to share the revelation of God to foreigners and allow them to worship him in the temple. The key running through the passage is that “all the peoples of the earth” may know God’s name and worship him.[10] In prophesying the restoration of Israel, Amos declares that all nations called by God will take part in that restoration.[11] And Isaiah 56 shows that salvation is soon coming available to all people.

In light of Old Testament passages that show God’s love for all nations, it is important to see the role of the Israelites in God’s plan of redemption for all people. Too often, new students of the Bible will feel that God’s chosen people were the only ones he loved or blessed; but in fact, God’s people were and are actually called to be his missionaries and servants to the rest of the world. For example, Isaiah says that God has called his people, among other things, to be a light to the gentiles.[12] “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”[13] And in fact, Old Testament readers will find that Jonah—unwilling, but still under the command of God—went on a missionary journey to the gentiles in Nineveh. Ester too seems to demonstrate her God’s glory in a foreign land, as do Daniel, Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abednego). As Moreau, Corwin, and McGee conclude, “Mission in the Old Testament involves the individual and the community of God’s people cooperating with God in his work of reversing what took place as a result of the fall.”[14]

MISSIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament—coming by way of the fulfillment of promises made many years earlier—is not only the good news of Jesus’ gospel, it is also the call to missions. Even before Christ went to the cross, he presented a picture of a people reaching out to the world in order to proclaim the good news of salvation. Much of the New Testament implores the Church and the individual believers to engage in mission and live sent. Jesus tells his disciples that just as the father sent him, he is sending them; and to help them, Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit.[15] On numerous occasions throughout the gospels, Jesus is shown going throughout the towns and villages, teaching, healing, forgiving sins, and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The woman who met Jesus outside Samaria at the well became a missionary to the entire town, of which “many Samaritans from that town believed in [Jesus] because of the woman’s testimony.”[16] Jesus sent out his disciples, after saying, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”[17] And Jesus continually preaches that his people must be a light unto the world.[18] Even John’s Gospel was written with a missionary/evangelistic purpose. John writes, “but these [signs in the presence of the disciples] are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”[19]

As the gospels end, Jesus gives the Church what is commonly known as the Great Commission, the very mission and duty of the Church. Jesus says to his disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”[20] In Acts and the epistles that follow, the very setting is within the backdrop of Christ’s commission for his Church. Paul and others are continually seen journeying to other lands and other peoples, faithfully preaching the gospel. Indeed, these texts provide the models after which most present-day missionaries and church planters structure their missions and church plants. However, it would seem that at times the Church reads over the many calls to missionary work throughout the New Testament. Duffield and Van Cleave remind their readers, “The Church has frequently needed special urging to get on with her assigned task.”[21] But for those who engage in missions, the hope that the biblical meta-narrative points to, which believes long for, is the picture seen in Revelation 7; that is, a multitude from every tribe, people, and language continually worshiping the Lamb of God.

MISSION THEOLOGY
Mission theology is essentially a biblical understanding of evangelistic outreach to the world. It addresses the questions of what does the Bible say about mission, missions, and the Missio Dei, and how these ideas are to be carried out in practical application. Like most aspects of theology, there are internal arguments about the answers to these questions. Theologians and missionaries struggle to land on single definitions. In part, it is the objective of this paper to avoid the minor details of these debates. Instead, this section, in light of the previously offered biblical survey of missions, will address how the nature of God relates to the mission of his Church, how mission theology fits within the broader systematic theology, and some motifs and themes running through mission theology today.

From the highest perspective, God’s people reach out to the lost because we are reflecting God’s desire for the redemption of his creation. This should be only natural for the regenerate believer being made in the image of God. As seen throughout the Old and New Testaments, the believer is sent—from the moment of conversion—on mission for the gospel. Therefore, it is important to understand other theology through the idea of mission. Moreau, Corwin, and McGee argue, “If Gods’ concern is truly that all nations be called to worship him [...], then it is natural to build a theology of mission at the core of all theological studies.”[22]

Balancing various other theologies with mission theology tends to be simple in areas dealing with creation, sin, and the fall of man. It gets difficult in soteriology or the order of salvation for example. Does God’s sovereignty even require missions? This question is sometimes asked specifically by Neo-Calvinist; however, the Bible clearly demonstrates God’s people on mission. Although there are some differences in the theology of the Calvinist and Arminian or Reformed and Free-will camps, there is no doubt that believers in Jesus are to be reaching others, living sent. Packer specifically address this issue in his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, writing, “Always and everywhere the servants of Christ are under orders to evangelize[...].”[23] Paul also speaks of this matter, writing to Timothy, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”[24] If Paul understood the elect like those doubting the need for missions today, why would he “endure everything”? Grudem, a theologian of a Calvinist/reformed position explains it like this: “It is as if someone invited us to come fishing and said, ‘I guarantee that you will catch some fish—they are hungry and waiting.’”[25] Notice that Grudem’s statement still requires one to engage in the act of fishing, guarantee or no.

Even still, important questions have to be asked even in areas of missiology. Does one work to reach the lost close to home or should the Church still engage in overseas missions? Traditional missions or church planting? Long-term or short-term missions? There are no simple answers, and the Bible demonstrates a variety of different models for mission work. That being said, it is important that those asking the questions spend much time in the Word of God and equally as much time in prayer. Ideally, like for Paul, the Holy Spirit will be the guide and helper.[26]

Primary dependence upon on the Holy Spirit’s lead is one motif or theme of mission theology. Moreau, Corwin, and McGee define motif as “a recurring pattern or element that reinforces the central guiding theme for the house.”[27] Motif is the look or feel that dictates other choices such as furniture style and paint colors. Among mission theology, Moreau, Corwin, and McGee identify a variety of motifs, that is, mission theology preferences. As already mentioned, the Holy Spirit is one motif. Those that gravitate to this theme tend to place the Holy Spirit in the guiding position of all that they do. Another motif is the Kingdom of God, which deals with the paradoxes of the Bible and tends to be driven by the idea of the coming Kingdom in and beyond the end times. The Jesus motif sees the Great Commission as the command and example of Christ. With this motif, Jesus is the absolute focal point and driving force behind missions. With the myriad of books publishing recently on the function of the local church and church planting, there is a high likelihood that the Church motif will also gain in popularity. The purpose and role of the church, in this motif, becomes the primary theme one views mission theology through. This motif seems much more community driven than some of the others and the church—having a strong purpose in this theology—plays a strong role. The Shalom motif tends to place a high priority on the peace of Jesus in world thrust in the conflict between Christ and Satan. And finally, the Return of Jesus is motivated by a strong leaning toward Eschatology. “The coming of Christ,” according to Moreau, Corwin, and McGee, “motivates Christians to be preservers in the lost world.”[28]

CONCLUSION
Regardless of the motif one’s mission theology might prefer, it is important that one have a mission theology that leads them to live sent, on biblical mission. Considering that God’s mission is assigned upon conversion, it applies to the missionary, church leader, and layperson alike. This paper only offers a brief survey of the vast material in mission theology, most of which is worth further exploration. However, one most eventually leave the theoretical and engage in the practical, as did the many missionaries of the Bible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calvin, John. Translated by John King. Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol 1., Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.
Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Moreau, A. Scott, Gary Corwin, and Gary B. McGee. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. Encountering mission. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004.
Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Roxburgh, Alan J. and M. Scott Boren. Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.


1. Scott A. Moreau, Gary Corwin, and Gary B. McGee, Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey, Encountering mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004), 17.
2. Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 27-45.
3. It is not the intention of the author to differentiate between the terms mission, missions, or missional in this paper. Therefore, the terms will be used interchangeably and simply mean the intentional effort to share the gospel with others in the vain of Matthew 28:19-20.
4. Genesis 3.
5. Moreau, 30.
6. John Calvin, translated by John King, Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol 1., Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 128.
7. Genesis 3:16, ESV.
8. Moreau, 30.
9. Genesis 12:3b, ESV.
10. Kings 8:43, ESV.
11. Amos 9:11-12.
12. Isaiah 42:6.
13. Isaiah 49:6, ESV.
14. Moreau, 37.
15. John 20:21.
16. John 4:39, ESV.
17. Luke 10:2, ESV.
18. See Luke 8:16-18 for just one example.
19. John 20:31.
20. Matthew 28:19-20.
21. Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008), 440.
22. Moreau, 75.
23. J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 13.
24. 2 Timothy 2:10, ESV.
25. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 674.
26. For examples, see Acts 13:2, 16:6, 20:23, and 21:11.
27. Moreau, 79.
28. Moreau, 85.


* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 

** Photo by Seth Anderson, registered under a creative commons license.

Jesus in Every Book of the Bible

The Bible is God's revelation of himself to creation.  It's God's Word.  2 Timothy 3:16 says it's "breathed out by God." Hebrews 4:12 says that it's "living and active," and "discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart," which is significant considering 1 Samuel 16:7 teaches that while man looks at the outward appearance, God looks on the heart.  "In the beginning was the Word," says John 1:1, "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And then John tells us that the Word--the revelation of God to his Creation--became a man.  He writes in John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the father, full of truth." The man John is talking about is Jesus.

Therefore,  is it too much of a stretch to think that the entire Bible is about Jesus, the Word of God?  "Of course," you might say, "the New Testament tells us about Jesus, but the old Testament is about the Father."  Well, consider this: reading through even the Old Testament, there are many prophecies about Jesus, but there are also many types or pictures of the Christ.  Why would this not be the case?  Consider the purpose of Word of God.  Consider who and what the Word is.

There are many studies demonstrating the presences of Jesus throughout the Old Testament, but maybe you should hear it from Jack Stockton, an 11-year-old boy who can stir you to see my point far better than I.
  


So if Jack is right, and I believe he is, this should change the way you read the Bible.  Keep your eyes open for Jesus; be on the look out.  Thanks Jack!

The Bible: Chapters and Verses

I always find it humorous when someone comes out with a new fancy Bible "code" that's based on chapter and verse notation.  If you're one of those people who get excited about these goofy things, please let me explain.

The Bible in its original form had no chapter or verse notations.  In fact, it wasn't even collected into a single binding like we have today.  Originally, each book or epistle was composed and copied on its own individual scroll (or in some cases, like Psalms, more than one scroll).  Sometimes they would even run out of room and have to write on the back (maybe the case for the scroll mentioned in Revelation 5:1).  Eventually, collections of books were assembled into a type of binding called a codex (the precursor of the book).  Based on what we know from archeological findings, it is highly unlikely that the original books had the same paragraph structure or punctuation we see today.  Actually, they didn't have any punctuation at all.  And even among the canon, there is no requirement that the books be collected in the same order as we see in the typical printed Bible of our day.  

In Jesus' day, the Scriptures were divided into the Law and the Prophets.  Of course after the canonization of New Testament, we could delineate between the Old and New Testaments.  And with the Old Testament, the common divisions are the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), History (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ester), Wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon), and the Prophets--broke up by major and minor books by length (majors are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentation, Ezekiel, and Daniel; minors are Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi).  For Protestants, this is where the Old Testament ends, with 39 books.  For Catholics, the Deutero-Canonical books also known as the Apocrypha, are another category found in with the binding of their Bibles.

The New Testament is also broke up by common divisions.  These are the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), History (Acts), Epistles (Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Peter, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd John, and Jude), and Apocalyptic (Revelation).  These are the 27 books of the New Testament.  Together with the Old Testament, 66 books make up the canonized Christian Bible. 

However, even with these divisions, it's very difficult to find a single passage of Scripture.  For example, the ESV translation of the Bible contains 757,575 words--it's a big book.  The Jews did have some kind of breakdown by verse to make synagogue reading a bit easier, but the chapter breakdown didn't come until the 13th century.  Some credit Hugo de St Caro with the addition of chapters to the Bible, but others say it was Stephen Langton.  Either way, it is clear that chapters were not a part of the original books and they are not a part of the Word of God.  The verse identification within the chapters was soon to follow.  But even with the addition of chapter and verse notation, reading older commentaries from guys like Luther and Calvin, it is clear that there was not a consistency among the notations.  That too came later.

So when the next book, article, or blog post published about a newly discovered Bible code, remember what parts of the Bible are the Word of God and what parts are not.  It might also be helpful to remember, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9, ESV).

For those who are interested, here are some statics about the Bible (but don't bother trying to find secret codes in these numbers because that's just a silly waste of time):

Number of Chapters in the Bible: 1,189.
Number of Chapters in the Old Testament: 929.
Number of Chapters in the New Testament: 260.

Number of verses in the entire Bible: 31,218.
Number of verses in the Old Testament: 23,261.
Number of verses in the New Testament: 7,957.

Number of words in the King James Version (KJV): 790,676.
Number of words in the English Standard Version (ESV): 757,575.
Number of words in the New International Version (NIV): 726,109.
Number of words in the New Living Translation (NLT): 747,974.

Purgatory and the Cross

I'm struggling to understand the idea behind purgatory.  No, that's not exactly right.  Purgatory, as I understand it, is something of a refining furnace that extracts the impurities from the soul prior to entering heaven.  Those impurities are the results of sin committed by the Christian. The idea then is that Christians, upon death, go to purgatory (or potentially straight to heaven), while non-Christians go to hell.  In the pre-Reformation church, the Roman Catholic pope could authorize indulgences, a transferable certificate that bought or earned less time in purgatory. However, there was really now way to know how long one would be refined in purgatory.  (These same indulgences were one of the fueling fires behind Martin Luther's swing toward reformation.)

So more accurately, what I don't understand is how purgatory lines up biblically with the cross.  The idea of purgatory is a mockery of the cross.

To the issue of purgatory and daily blasphemies needed to prop it up, John Calvin says,
"We are bound, therefore, to raise our voice to its highest pitch, and cry aloud that purgatory is a deadly device of Satan; that it makes void the cross of Christ; that if offers intolerable insult to the divine mercy; that is undermines and overthrows our faith.  For what is this purgatory but the satisfaction for sin paid after death by the souls of the dead? Hence when this idea of satisfaction is refuted, purgatory itself is forthwith completely overturned.  But if it is perfectly clear, from what was lately said, that the blood of Christ is the only satisfaction, expiation, and cleansing for the sins of believers, what remains but to hold that purgatory is mere blasphemy horrid blasphemy against Christ?  I say nothing of the sacrilege by which it is daily defended, the offenses which it begets in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we see teeming froth from that fountain of impiety" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Ch 5, Sec 6.) 
I realize my statements here may be offensive to my Roman Catholic friends.  I am open to conversation on this topic, but I make no apology.  I hope that there is a mutual realization that purgatory is offensive to the Protestant understanding of passages such as Romans 5:8, Romans 8:1, Hebrews 9:25-28, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 53:6, and Philippians 1:23.

*Painting by Ludovico Carracci is in the public domain.

Year One of SaltyBeliever.com

A year ago I decided to start SaltyBeliever.com.  Looking at the site one year later, I find it interesting to reflect on what's here.

I had a number of reasons for starting the website.  The first was to have an easy place to provide links and resources that I could point people to as the need surfaced.  Second, after the first year of seminary, I saw a lot of my studies being filed away for no future use or benefit to anybody.  What a waste. Why not post parts of this work on-line so maybe someone else could get something from them. . . even if only one person.  And the third reason was to demonstrate to other ministries how simple and inexpensive it is to have a presence on the Internet.

About the time of the birth of this website, I was looking at the websites of a few churches in the Salt Lake valley.  I saw some very good websites and some very poor ones.  What really shocked me was how many churches had (and still have) no site on the Internet.  So I set out on a little experiment to see how even the smallest church with the smallest budget could get on-line.  I've spent a total of $10 to register SaltyBeliever.com for the year (although I also registered the .org domain too, but that's not necessary).  I set up Google Analytics account to keep an eye on traffic numbers.  I use FeedBurner.com for the RSS feed, podcast help, and e-mail subscription.  The blog is a blogger run site and I use Archive.org to store the few podcasts I've done.  The widgets like the search box are free and simple to use and set up.   In fact, all of the website was free with the exception of registering the domain.  I don't have any server space and I'm not a very web-technical guy.  And yet, the first year seems to have been a good one.  (Churches, if you don't have a website at all, this is a simple way to do at least something!)   

By the Numbers:
Just under 550,000 words were published in the first year of SaltyBeliever.com, comprising a total of 131 posts.  151 photos were uploaded--all free, all obtained and used legally.  40 books of the Bible were quoted or cited at least once, but some much more than that.

Google Analytics reports that from 7,000 unique visitors, SaltyBeliever.com had nearly 9,700 visits, resulting in almost 15,500 total page views (my visits are removed from this tracking).  311 countries are represented among the visitors of the website; but the majority of visitors came from the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.  Surprisingly, Utah ranked third in the states with the most visits, behind Texas and Virgina.

The most popular post over the course of the year was Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament By Christopher J.H. Wright. It seems that many of the posts that saw the highest repeat traffic were from portions of seminary papers, especially the book reviews.  However, the posts that generated the highest single-day traffic were the ones dealing with current events, such as the discussions on Ergun Caner and Glenn Beck.

I received over 100 comments or questions via the Contact Me form, mostly positive but not all. I've also connected with a couple dozen people on Facebook and Twitter specifically through this website.

Heading into Year Two:
I wish I had a clear idea what the second year of this website is going to look like, but the truth is, I don't know.  The site is more academic that I had originally hoped.  That being said, I don't want to make any reductions in content, but I do want to make the material more accessible.  I want to make complicated things easy, not the other way around.  I also want to add more content, more often, and not just seminary work.  I'm thinking about more issues from current events and maybe more apologetic work.  But most importantly, I want to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in what is posted here and how this site is used.  If I do that, it really won't matter what the second year of SaltyBeliever.com looks like because it will be what it is intended to be.

Thank you for reading!

My God bless you,
Bryan



Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Music Makes the People Come Together

Introduction. Of the non-essential to salvation matters where Christians disagree, the type and style of music in the Church for worship (or otherwise) has been a hot topic, maybe in your church, the hottest. At times, this disagreement settles down and at other times, it surfaces with a roar. Fights develop over questions like hymns or contemporary music style. Organ or drums; how big should the choir be, if there should be one; to what extent should the lyrics be evaluated theologically; at what level should the volume be set; how many songs; when; how much music; who is qualified to lead the choir or band? Sadly, these matters have split churches and fractured fellowship among communities of believers. These disagreements however, do not negate the fact that Paul told the Ephesians not to get drunk but instead, “be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:18b-20, ESV, italics added for emphasis). Music is an important aspect of the Church, stirring hearts toward God to give thanks and praise. Therefore, a strong music ministry is a necessity for the local church.

What is Music Ministry and Why. In her song “Music,” Madonna sings, “It's like riding on the wind, and it never goes away. Touches everything I'm in, got to have it everyday. Music makes the people come together” (Madonna 2000). Although her secular song is about music, she still captures the power that music has to move us deeply in our souls and communicate a certain beauty between one another that is not easily shared in other forms. And in this way, people can communicate that moving beauty with God; while at the same time, the Holy Spirit can use music to stir our hearts and affections toward our Creator. (It is worth noting that because music does stir us so deeply, it also has the ability to stir other emotions and potentially turn us away from God, shifting our affection toward a false idol.)

A good music ministry helps bring people into a place where they can openly worship God. Hymns or songs can be selected to work in conjunction with the sermon or teaching. While the worshiper speaks to God through music, God also uses music to speak to the worshiper. In addition, music serves as a way to worship throughout daily activities, so teaching songs and hymns helps the congregation take their praise and thanksgiving everywhere, and into everything they do.

Typically, a music ministry leader will have a selection of songs that are used regularly. The lyrics may be projected on a screen or the printed in the program. If hymns are used, hymnals should be available. Some churches will print the lyrics of music into a booklet to simplify worship in settings were screens are not available, not necessary, or not wanted. And a music ministry affords people the opportunity to use their gifts and talents to play an instrument, sing, dance, run sound boards, or write songs.

A strong leader is necessary for music ministry. Partly because music is a powerful way that the gospel is ministered in the lives of both believers and non-believers, but also because the music ministry is an area where it seems everybody as an opinion and often wants it done their preferred way. Criswell says “Of course everybody will want the organ softer or louder. Everybody will want different music. The church that has a broad spectrum of music presented in its worship services will have all of the people quite happy most of the time (we hope!)” (Criswell 1980, 191). It is arguable that appeasing people to make them happy should not be a requirement of a music ministry, but Criswell is right in that there will be competing desires among the members of the church. Therefore, the leader of the music ministry needs to be capable of leading in such an environment.

Examples of Music Ministry. The most obvious example of music ministry is the leading of worship during corporate services, but there are other ways to use music ministry. Worship gatherings made up of a few local churches are one example. Having a concert and barbecue in the street is another. Some churches offer music workshops to children. And finally, incorporating other art forms with the music, such as dance, poetry, painting and sculpting, and theater can have a powerful impact on those coming together to worship. It is important however, that no matter what type of style of music, the music ministry serves to point to God, not to become the focal point of the worship. The band should be insignificant in light of the worship and the one being worshiped.


References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
Madonna and Mirwais Ahmadzaï. 2000 Music. “Music.” Preformed by Madonna and others.
Warner Brothers. [CD, Track 1]. 

*Photo by Any Burnfield is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

Carey on missions, then and today

It seems that overseas missions are a delicate subject today.  People feel strongly about them--either arguing for them or against them.  I think overseas missions are just as necessary as they've always been, but I admit, while I have been to a number of overseas countries, at the time of writing this post, I have never been on an intentional Christian mission in a foreign land.

What get's really interesting is the arguments against overseas missions.  They are the same tired arguments made for over 200 years.  William Carey faced some objections in 1793 that (at least in the US) we still hear today.  In summary, they were (and still are),

1. The Great Commission was an instruction/command ONLY to the Apostles (and maybe the disciples of the time) to get the Church to start to spread out. 

2. There are many in our own nation that need to hear the gospel so we should focus are efforts here.

3. There is great hardship and hazard in doing mission work in many places throughout the world.

To the first objection, Carey argued that if it was only to apply to the Apostles, than the same should hold true for baptism.  If so, than all the many churches preforming baptism are doing so against the instruction of God.    His second response to this objection is that if the Commission was only for the Apostles than engaging in missions is actually acting without warrant or authority.  And finally, he asserts that there would be no reason for Jesus to say, "Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world. . ."  Carey implies, and I would also add, that if the Great Commission and baptism were only for Apostles, than preforming these duties would actually be saying that one feels he or she is as the original Apostles, therefore, the actions should be avoided.  However, the reality is that it is wrong to conclude that this instruction was only for the Apostles.   

To the second objection--one that is extremely prevalent today, Carey says that those in our own lands at least still have an option to attend church or pick up and read a Bible.  But there are some places where this is not an option and Carey believed we should be working to make churches and Bibles available where there are none.  We should preach the gospel where it is not being preached at all rather than work harder to preach it where it is being rejected. 

And finally, Carey addresses the third objection by simply saying, "It is no objection to commercial men.  It only requires that we should have as much love to the souls of our fellow creatures, and fellow sinners, as they have for the profits arising from a few otter-skins, and all these difficulties would be easily surmounted. . . "(Winter 2009, 316).

If I may take a moment and offer my confession.  The first objection seems very minimal and easy to overcome.  And where the third objection is a challenge for some, I personally have no issue with it having endured substantial challenges of hazard and hardship in the early phase of the Iraq war.  However, I often find myself dealing with the second objection.  It kills me to see how much money is spent to send missionaries overseas when our neighbors are just as lost.  Yet, Carey's argument is extremely valid.  The problem I am facing is an either/or type of thinking. And my either/or thinking here is wrong.  The reality is we must still be sending called missionaries AND we need to be empowering and encouraging all the believers in our area to engage in the the thing they were called to the moment they were saved--to declare the Good News.   

_____
Winter, Ralph D., Steven C. Hawthorne, Darrell R. Dorr, D. Bruce Graham, and Bruce A. Koch. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Pasadena, Calif: William Carey Library, 2009.

*Photo of William Carey is in the public domain. 

The New International Version 2011

Walk into any Christian bookstore and it's hard to miss the wide assortment of Bible translation options. This is in part because it is impossible to translate one language from a different time and culture into something that reads exactly same way today, in a totally different time and culture. But given the importance of the message of the Bible, this does not mean we should not try.   Many have tried and many have had different ideas and theories about translation.  And again, we are seeing another attempt--this time, a revision or update of a previous attempt.

I'm not yet sure want to make of the NIV 2011, but I thought I'd share this advertisement from the chair of the NIV 2011 translation committee, Dr. Douglas Moo.

Planned Revival?

I did not grow up in a church that had an annual revival meeting or planned revival outreaching weeks, so I always find it strange to hear churches planning revival meetings.  What are these meetings and what to the planners actually expect? 

During the First Great Awaking for example, three specific points would need special attention the sovereignty of God worked as God works. As is often the case, there was not no “sure model” or method that brought about spectacular revival. There are some key elements—most specifically a dedication to preaching the Word of God—but between Edwards and Whitefield, there were two entirely different styles and reactions in revival.  And it is widely know that Edwards read his sermons word for word, without emotion.  Whitefield, on the other hand, did show emotion, even weeping while delivering his sermon. Edwards did not plan for the reactions he received and it happened outside of his orchestration. Gonzalez writes, “He had been preaching in Northampton for several years, which average results, when his preaching began evoking a response that surprised him” (González 1985, 228). God brings about revival, not a program, planned revival, or marketing plan of man.

Also worth noting is that the revival was not limited to one denomination, geographic location, local church, or preacher. Edwards was a Congregationalist; Whitefield was an Anglican.  Others were Methodists; some were Baptist.  Some were Calvinist, but not all.  It can been shown that during this period Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Baptist saw fervor and excitement in various forms, and the zeal was spreading to multiple locations (although in this case, like most, it was in the mostly in country rather than in the cities). Revival it seem, is not a program or outreach for one church to plan into the upcoming year, it’s God’s working in a people.

And finally, it is valuable to see that just as quick as revival comes, it goes. Some people will hold on to the past memories and some will look to future hope. González writes, “In a few months, the movement swept the area and reached into Connecticut. Soon it subsided, and after three years its extraordinary signs had almost disappeared. But the memory remained, as well as the hope that it would be rekindled” (González 1985, 228).

We should realize that revival is not something to be taken lightly and it is not something that we simply build into our annual plans as an outreach program.  Revival is God’s revival, to happen as he sees best fit, when he makes it happen.  We must always remember that.

___
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol II. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

*The photo of Methodist revival in USA 1839, watercolor from 1839, is technically depicting the Second Great Awakening.  It is in the public domain.  

When the Hype Lets You Down

Salt Lake City recently had a national blizzard warning.  This warning was a big deal because these warnings rarely, if ever happen.  Early on, the Salt Lake media started their "blizzard watch" around-the-clock news coverage.

Residents were warned to stock up on batteries, water, blankets and other supplies.  We were told that this blizzard was massing power and intensity and would shut down Salt Lake City.  It had the potential of being the worst storm to hit the area in fifty years, they said.  The news was even breaking into regularly scheduled programing to provide updates hours before the storm arrived.  A scrolling banner was constantly moving across the bottom of the television screen to alert residents of emergency Red Cross locations. They hype was reaching overwhelming proportions.

But when the storm arrived, it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary for Salt Lake.  There was very little wind and about 2 inches of cold, dry snow.  A week before, enough heavy snow came down to cause my neighbor's old tree to collapse in my driveway.   The week after the "blizzard," Salt Lake was covered in two feet of snow.  (It took me nearly three hours to shovel my driveway and sidewalks.)

The new outlets however, were not about to allow the hype (which they created) to fall short.  As the supposed blizzard started, they had reporters outside doing live broadcasts.  These reporters would say things like, "As you can see, nobody is outside because it's so dangerous."  Had they been in that same location on any other day, there still wouldn't have been anybody out, but not because of any blizzard danger.  At one point, the news put up images from a highway video camera.  In the shot, one could see about 3/4 a mile down the highway.  It was dark and there was a light snowfall.  Cars seemed to be traveling 30 or 35 miles per hour.  But the report stated that it was "whiteout conditions" and visibility was "zero."  "Cars were at a standstill" he said. 

After the storm, the news outlets in the Salt Lake area lost all credibility.  Not only was the storm nothing significant (showing the meteorologists' inability to accurately predict the weather), we also witnessed the reporters' inability to accurately report the news.  The next morning as the city was realizing that the blizzard was anything but, the news was still reporting that were lucky to be alive.

It seems that Christians do this from time to time when they share Christianity with those who do not know Jesus.  Intentional or not, there can sometimes be an unrealistic picture presented of what a life walking with Jesus looks like.  "Before I knew Jesus, I was a drug addict with lots of problems, but after I met Jesus, my life was great and I never faced any problems at all."  The prosperity gospel the worst culprit.  "I was poor before I new Jesus, but now look, I drive a Lexis and have lots of money."  But the truth is, life with Christ is not free of problems.  In fact, the Bible teaches that Christians will face trials.  (For examples, see James 1:2, Matthew 13:21, Mark 4:17, Luke 22:28-32, 1 Peter 1:6-7, Romans 8:35-39.)  We cannot expect that God will keep promises he never made to us.  At other times, Christians over-report the wonders of Christ's influence in their lives.  Emotion runs high and the hype grows to overwhelming proportions.  (I'm sure I've been guilty of this.)

So the best thing Christians can do is report the gospel accurately.  The gospel is life changing; no hype is necessary.  However, if we, like the news, create too much hype or incorrectly present the picture, we will lose all credibility and the gospel will be the victim.  And if we lose credibility, people will change the channel or read a different news paper.  Looking at America today, it is not hard to see many people changing the station because they do not see the Church as credible anymore.  It is important we remain honest and accurate if we are to be good ambassadors of the Kingdom.  Nobody should be left shoveling an inch of snow and three feet of cow manure because a Christian was more concerned about ratings than the truth of the gospel itself. 

*The photograph is in the public domain.

ETS and the Cobb County Transit

When we ask him to do so, God strips us of our idols. He redirects us when we move off the path, if we let him. Recently, God has done both for me.

I'm not sure when it started and I don't know when it will end, but it reached the level of serious when I went to the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Atlanta. I should confess, I only went to part of ETS, but in that part, used in conjunction with some other events of this week, the Great Sculptor reshaped me.

In the week leading up to ETS, I took the itinerary of events that came with my registration packet and created a schedule of the parallel sessions I hoped to attend. I flipped through books by John Piper and N.T. Wright on justification. I read Grudem and Erickson on the same topic. I also browsed through Grudem's new politics book that I knew he would be discussing. I was as excited as a 4-year-old in a candy store; I was a theological student in a high-calorie theology cafe.

At the same time, a friend (who I had hoped would be attending ETS with me) was saying goodbye to his 4-month-old baby girl. Jane was born with some serious heart issues; and on top of that, she was born prematurely. For four months this little girl and her parents were in my prayers. They still are. She was in need of some serious surgeries, but they were not to be and she never left the hospital. She joined Jesus in heaven--I missed the funeral.

In the months leading up to ETS, I found myself thinking about how the application of my theology worked in the reality of the fallen world in which we live. Does my theology have hands that reach into people's lives? Does my theology have feet to go where God wants it to go? Is my theology accessible? Does it bare fruit or is it a seedless tree? As I looked around me and saw the life of real people, Christians and not, I started to examine my theology, deeply, in the real world. I was finding that my theology was okay (for the most part) but the application was not.

I was getting a feeling that my theology was a molded idol and I was bowing down before it. Many people do not see the problem with this so let me be clear: theology is a study that helps us understand God and his relationship with his creation. The study itself is not to be worshiped; neither are the doctrines, papers, books, computer software, theologians, professors, speakers, pastors, ideas, debates, sermons, lectures, seminaries, Church history, denominations, or any other aspect that finds itself yoked to theology. Rather, theology should be viewed as nothing but a tool to help us rightly understand the only appropriate subject of our worship. But my theology was giving way to something lifeless. I was starting to question if my theological lens would show me the same picture in other income levels, denominations, geographical locations, cultures, and even in different time periods. And if so, could I communicate my beliefs and theology in other environments, or is my theology dependent upon something it should not be?

When I arrived at ETS, it was hard not to notice the serious lack of diversity. The meeting is dominated by white, older men. Suits. Beards. And of the students, they either looked like "mini-me" professors or cloned Mark Driscolls. Conversations seemed to circle around seminary networking and debates that have little significance in the reality of anyone outside of the academic environment. Given recent circumstances and conversations, I quickly realized that there was an idol obstructing my view of the Living God.

My academic desires were limited in helping me understand God's sovereign dealings with little Jane and her parents. In fact, Jane's life taught me more about our King of kings than any professor ever could. In this situation, I didn't need to know about God, I needed to really, deeply know him.

Grudem, N.T. Wright and Polycarp had little to say to the man on the plane next to me who's understanding of his “Christian” faith was about nothing but the politics of abortion and our need to keep “In God We Trust” printed on our money. Neither did his faith keep him from looking at foot-fetish pornography on his phone as we flew from Dallas to Atlanta. And the economic collapse had destroyed his idea of any hope in anything, yet time and time again he would tell me he had been a Christian since high school.

Having to take work with me to the conference, knowing I was missing Jane's funeral, and being unable to get a flight home broke down my academic facade. Struggling under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, I left ETS and made my way to the house of some friends. The contrast between the hotel ballroom and MARTA (Atlanta's public transit system) was sharp. And when I got on a full Cobb County Transit bus, I discovered I was the only white person on board. Even more contrast was found as I observed the other riders. They wore their poverty. They were dishwashers and mechanics, fast food employees. A young, tired mother of three flirted with man in a McDonald uniform. Some were likely unemployed. There was no way the papers, panels, and debates I had heard earlier that day would have any reach onto this bus.

The next day, my friend took me out to BBQ and a Thrashers game. Over some great wings, we talked about the realities of being men-- husbands and fathers. Together we celebrated victories and laughed about our shared realities. We encouraged one another in our shortfalls and struggles. Right there in that wood-floored roadhouse we found holy ground. The theological application had life and it pointed us to God.

We had fun at the NHL game. The Thrashers shut out the Capitals. Then we made our way back into the bowels of the MARTA station. The platform was packed. People of all walks of life stood together waiting for the train. Standing out on one end of the crowd, slightly away from the pack, was a man in suit. I had him pegged in a second. “Are you here for ETS?” I asked the man. He turned around and was still wearing his conference badge. And right then, in the tunnel, my two worlds met. Academia and reality.

The man was no different than anybody I met at ETS and yet he was completely out of place waiting for the train. After introducing myself and exchanging pleasantries, I asked him about Wright's idea of justification. Suddenly, the man had a lifeline. He lit up and started postulating about the aspects of Calvinism and grace, free will and the inability to save ourselves. He used huge academic concepts. While I had a good idea of what he was discussing and I knew that he and I could have gone for about an hour on the topic, I could see that my friend and Christian brother was removed from the conversation. Even after an hour—if the professor and I had talked for that long—there would have been no fruit or life in the conversation. Here we were in a subway full of people not doing anything to point them (or ourselves) toward Christ. Our theology in that moment had no practical application.

I'm coming to see that Jesus took the complicated and made it simple. The Scribes and Pharisees did just the opposite. I've found that I have often missed the opportunity to make something simple for someone who needed to see God in a real way. In no way do I think seminary or the papers or the study is bad, but we Christians must remember the purpose for these things. (They are just tools, to be used in our theological workshop.  When looking at a fine crafted piece of wood furniture, we marvel at the end product, not the tools that the woodworker used to craft it.)  We must keep focused on making the complex simple. Our theological application must work cross-culturally and cross-economically. I pray that my academic pursuits remain what they are to be: a tool to better help me understand God and His revelation to us. I pray that I am able to keep it simple so it actually impacts lives and points people toward their Creator and Savior.

*Photo of a woman sleeping was taken by Damon "tigger89" and is registered under a creative commons license. Photo of professor was taken by Lamont Cranston and is registered under a creative commons license.  

Accaptance Among the Body: Thoughts on Romans 14:1-15:13

Understanding the Passage 
In Romans chapters 1-11, Paul works through the theology of the gospel. When he hits Romans 12:1-2, he signals a shift from the theoretical to the practical. He then puts practical application to the first 11 chapters. From 12:3-13:14, Paul outlines what the theology should look like in the life of the believer. As Paul paints a picture of the faithful life, there is an inclination for those strong in the faith to potentially get puffed up and feel superior to those not as strong, that is, the weak. But then Paul moves into what has been numbered as chapter 14.

The early part of this text sets up the entire argument. Paul opens by addressing the strong in the faith because he leaves the responsibility upon the strong to welcome or receive the weak (14:1). In many ways, the strong are the leaders in the body and Paul basically is saying, “Hey, you strong Christians who walk well in the faith, you need to welcome those that are not as strong. You need to lead and teach.” It might be that Paul is taking away the leaders’ ability to use the previous passage to attack and demolish the weak. Verse 14:2 clearly shows that there is some kind of dietary dispute (likely the Jewish Law), and it seems the strong, like Paul (15:1), hold that there is no longer a dietary law that brings about righteousness. The weak person might be abstaining from eating meat to avoid eating anything unclean, or he or she may be mirroring Daniel’s actions when he was living among captivity. Either way, these are weak Christian beliefs. However, 14:3 instructs that there should be no fighting between the two groups within the Church. The strong should not look down upon the weak for bad theology and the weak should not pass judgment on the eating habits of the strong. In both cases, the one judging the other is actually saying, “I’m better than that person because. . . .” The end of verse 14:3 and verse 4 remind the reader that Christ has purchased the believer, thus owning them. The believer is ultimately accountable to him.

The text continues into the area of holding up a day as holy. The same idea applies to those who are strong in the faith and those in the weak as it does with the dietary dispute. Paul also points out that both the weak and the strong do what they do with the intention of honoring the Lord. And following this discussion, Paul again (only this time more apparently) states that Christ died for all believers and all believers will account to him (14:9-12).
Before moving on to the next point of this passage, it might seem that Paul is arguing that we should take no issue with differences among believers. However, looking at the whole of Paul’s writings, we can see that this is not as simple as it sounds. Paul hopes that all will one day have a strong, sound theology and he works hard to teach it, which is in part the purpose of his letters. Therefore, it seems the main point of 14:1-12 is an exhortation that believers should not quarrel over minor differences of gospel understanding when the intentions are to honor God (in these non-essential to salvation matters). The impetus of keeping peace among believers, however, is placed on the strong, the leaders, and Paul’s next point confirms this.

In the remainder of this text, Paul instructs the strong to act as such. 14:13 states that none should pass judgment and place an obstacle before another. Although the weak may judge the strong, it would be difficult for the weak to trip up the strong; therefore, it is likely that this passage is for the strong. Paul makes it very clear that believers in Christ are not under the Old Covenant (14:14a). However, if one thinks something is unclean, than they will behave as if it is and therefore it might as well be (14:14b). So, as brothers in Christ are coming together, according to Paul in 14:15, it is not love to cause the weaker brother to grieve over what the stronger eats in the presence of the weak. Verse 14:15 outlines the weight of the matter in dispute, placing it in its proper place: the diet is not the Kingdom of God, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit is. Verse 14:16 encourages the strong to do whatever it takes to have peace among the brethren and work to build up the body. Paul uses the remainder of chapter 14 reinforce his point.

As chapter 15 opens, Paul is still instructing the strong to carry the burden of peace among the Church. The strong are to voluntarily give up some of their liberty in Christ in order to serve their weaker brothers and neighbors. It is not that the strong simply overlook the weakness, but like Christ, humble themselves to enter the environment of the weak, in order to connect with the weaker brother and teach him, that is, build him up. And not only is this true for fellow Jewish believers, but with Gentiles who have never lived under the Old Covenant (15:8-13). And Paul reminds his readers that even though the Christian is not under the law, the Old Testament Scripture is still God’s work and good for teaching and understanding (15:5).

Still Quarreling Today

It seems that various non-essentials still serve as an obstacle. There are many, but one example comes in the form of alcohol consumption. Some in the Church think that a total abstinence of alcohol is necessary for holiness, while others see moderate consumption (to exclude drunkenness) as an acceptable liberty in Christ.

Does this sound familiar? It should because as Paul was discussing the quarrel due to dietary laws, he included wine! However, I have encountered Christians who look down on other believers who choose to have a glass of wine with a meal. And I have also encountered an occasional drinking Christian go off on those who say drinking even one drop of alcohol is a sin. In this case, the drinker may be like the stronger that Paul discussed and the non-drinker (for reasons of holiness) is the weaker. At least theologically, there is a strong argument that drinking in-and-of-it-self is not a sin, but drunkenness is. But when a pastor scoffs at those who hold that drinking is a sin, he is not adhering to Paul’s instruction. Instead, he may need to give up some liberty around these believers. He will do far more to teach the Bible in love than to scoff or try to make his point for the purpose of looking down on other believers (which is really to try to build himself up over them).

Here's another way to thinking about this, although I admit that this illustration is one-sided. I am reminded of my life as a private in the Army, before the war, compared to my life as a staff sergeant after my wartime experience. In 1996, as a young man and a new soldier, I felt I needed to prove myself. I wanted to be tested in battle. I talked about it very naively. The medals for bravery held a position of awe. But then after a few years in the military, I started to understand my role as a leader. Then, as a sergeant, I lead others in a war zone. The medals, I came to realize, mean very little. Keeping people alive and getting the job done meant everything. Avoiding reckless contact with the enemy was of the utmost importance. There was no need to be tested in combat. What a ridiculous notion! However, after my return, I would come across new, young privates that talk as I had. At times, I would chastise them for their stupidity, only to lose their respect. I quickly came to understand that if I were to help them grow as warriors, I would need to put aside my issues and allow them to hold to their dreams of John Wayne heroics, all the while working to prepare them. We all serve the same purpose—to fight and win wars. They will, just as I did, come to understand war and battlefield testing. The important thing is that I (as the leader) did not look down my nose at them, but instead trained them. The same is true with the gospel in the Church.

Paul’s Principle
Paul is not making a difficult point. His principle is as simple as loving one another despite some minor differences. We are not to quarrel over non-essential matters with our fellow believers. And it is the job of the leader to bring peace to the Church, to put aside these differences, and keep the focus on the more important aspects of the gospel and the Kingdom of Christ.


*This post was originally part of a discussion in seminary. The photograph is in the public domain.

Ministry Gifts Inventory?

Introduction. Ministry gift inventory tests are often a double-edged sword. On the one side, they can help a person zero in and understand personal and gifted strengths valuable to service within the local church. The other side of the sword however, is that by their very nature, they are limiting and impersonal, often providing an either/or list from which to identify gifts. “Ministry Gifts Inventory” by Michael Miller is just such a double-edged sword. In what follows, I will discuss this particular test and then identify my results from taking two tests separated by three months.  I will also discuss what I believe is a stronger method of understanding of individual spiritual gifts.

The Test. The test offered in “Ministry Gifts Inventory” (Lifeway Church Resources) is a self-test based on self-selected answers to 72 questions. Each answer is a range from, “I am seldom or never this way” to “I am this way most or all of the time.” The answers correspond to a point system from 0 to 4. The 72 questions attempt to identify twelve different spiritual gifted areas for ministry. On page 6, the Overview makes it clear that this test is not intended to completely cover spiritual gifts and gifted offices as discussed in the Bible. Miller writes, “The inventory is not designed to be an exhaustive analysis of spiritual gifts. Its purpose is to highlight areas of strength based on what you feel motivates you spiritually and to enable you to pinpoint areas of ministry for which you are gifted.” The gifts and gifted offices in First Corinthians 12 include prophet/prophecy, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, discernment (or distinguishing of spirits), teacher, miracles, healings, helps, administration, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. Ephesians 4:11 adds evangelist and pastor/teacher to the list. Romans 12 adds serving, encouraging, leadership, and mercy. Some hold that 1 Corinthians 7:7 argues that marriage and celibacy are gifts. Others argue that exorcism is a spiritual gift based on Matthew 12:28; Luke 10:17, 20; Acts 8:7; and Acts 16:18.  And some say that 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 incorporates voluntary poverty and martyrdom as spiritual gifts.

Given that there does not seem to be one exhaustive list in the Bible, the gift list appear somewhat fluid; however, all of the listed gifts seem to be sovereignly gifted to the recipient for corporate use in the Church and for the Church, suggesting the same for any other perceived gift not listed. Miller’s test identifies the gifts only as administration, evangelism, exhortation, giving, helps, hospitality, leadership, mercy, prophecy, service, shepherding, and teaching. The test ranks them, suggesting the higher scored areas are the test-taker’s spiritual gifts.

My Results. In the first or second week of June 2010 (I failed to document the exact date of the test), I made copies of Miller’s “Ministry Gifts Inventory” and then took the test. On July 29th, I took the test again without first reviewing my previous results. (From this point forward, I will call these Test 1 and Test 2, respectively.) My average score per gift area on Test 1 was 14.4. On Test 2 it was only 12.5. (Each area as a maximum score of 18.) My top two gifts on both tests were first teaching (with a score of 18) followed by shepherding (scoring at 17). My bottom gift on both tests was giving. The various other gifts jostled in position slightly, but there was never more than a single position shift. The next top gifts (although shifted in position) were leadership, administration, and prophecy.

A Better Test. The problem with Miller’s self-test is that it is self-selection. What often occurs with a self-selection test is that a person answers as they see themselves rather than how reality sees them. For example, I may really want to be a teacher or really believe I am a good teacher, but in reality, I could be terrible. How many times do people feel they have the gift of preaching but they do not communicate well? How many times have I heard someone say they have a gift of decrement or wisdom only to find that they often miss obvious information that would greatly help them make good choices? This is because of self-selection or self-identification. In addition, there are times when people completely overlook something they are absolutely gifted with because they assume everybody has the same gift or skill level.

A better way to understand spiritual gifts takes more time and effort, but the results are often much more accurate. The process starts with prayer, asking God to identify the areas he has uniquely gifted the inquirer for the benefit of Church or God’s purposes. Then the person should list all those things he or she enjoys doing, at church or not. And he or she should make a list of things he or she is good at, likely better than most people, even if he or she does not enjoy doing these tasks. Before analysis should happen however, the person should ask his or her closest Christian friends and family to honestly identify those areas where the person is talented and seems spiritually gifted. They should also indicate areas where they see strong potential.  The inquirer should request that they include prayer in this process. After a few people have answered, the lists can be compared. Generally, similarities will surface, presenting a person’s actual spiritual gifting. The key is close friendships with people who know the inquirer well and honesty answer these questions.

It is important that these lists not be limited to the “standard” list we too often associate with spiritual gifts. It could be that a person’s talent falls within the list, but many times, they do not. We do not see “artist” on the “standard” list, but how much blessing comes to the church through design and art today? Music is the same way. Baking and food preparation? Dance? Writing? Security? Computer programing?  Database management?  Video and sound editing?  Construction?  Investing?  God may have gifted a person to design and build affordable housing so that he or she could go on an overseas mission to bless people in need. Or a person may be gifted in security to protect an overseas operation. These are all gifts given by God.And there are many, many more.

Conclusion. For some, understanding spiritual gifts is difficult. I often feel that I do not fully grasp or understand my spiritual gifts. For others it is extremely obvious. One place to start is through a simple gift inventory test, as limiting as it may be. The next place to understand and grow spiritual gifts is in community. I have found Miller’s test insightful, but I will also continue to lean on my community in order to identify and grow my spiritual gifts.

* I have no material connection to this book. This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

Culture's Role in Gospel Communication

CULTURE’S ROLE IN GOSPEL COMMUNICATION:
THROUGH THE LENS OF THE UTAH-MORMON CULTURE

INTRODUCTION
Foolish is the evangelist, missionary, or church planter who overlooks or brushes aside the role of culture upon gospel communication. Just as Jesus entered into a specific community and taught his gospel through the context of the culture in which he physically walked, today’s gospel communicator should share the gospel in cultural context. This requires an understanding of the aspects of culture upon a community and the opportunities or obstacles they may present. No two cultures or communities are alike. Therefore, in an attempt to understand culture’s role on gospel communication, this post will examine the question by analyzing one specific culture (and its subcultures).

Often, studies of cross-cultural evangelism address the complex ME-3 issues, that is, evangelism that involves communicating the gospel to an entirely different language and culture.1 However, in our zeal to reach the world, the American church has neglected many nearby American communities. McRaney says, “The church in America is failing to impact the pool of people who do not claim to possess a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”2 Could this failure be due to the poor communication of the gospel within the subtle cultural differences between neighbors? Utah is a prime example. According to the Association of Religious Data Archives, in 2000, only 7.8% of the population of Utah held a Trinitarian belief of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, that is, the God of the Bible.3 If you include the believe that the Bible is comprised of 66 books, this number drops to 3.2%. This compares to a national average of 44.9% over the same period.4 If Utah were its own nation, the number of Christians5 per capita would rank below China (8.2%),6 and the United Arab Emirates (12.6%).7

Utah is highly populated by Mormons, more appropriately called ‘Latter-day Saints’ (LDS). In 2000, 66.8% were officially members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and those with similar cultural backgrounds belonging to cults and offshoots of the LDS church (such as the FLDS and other polygamists groups) as well as the non-Christian ex-Mormons were likely counted as “unclaimed” or unchurched.8 Through the community’s history, the LDS church’s doctrines, and development of LDS people in Utah, this specific culture is unlike any other in the United States and offers a good case study for evangelism in a subtle, cross-cultural environment. By dealing with specific examples rather than abstract ideas, one should be able to glean principles of cultural understanding and gospel communication that may be applied to other subtle cultural differences.

WHAT IS CULTURE?
Every person on earth exists within a culture and understands the world through a lens tinted or shaped by one particular culture or another. Dyrness defines culture as, “the total pattern of a people’s behavior.”9 In his use of the word ‘total,’ Dyrness leaves no aspect of communication outside of culture’s reach. “Culture,” continues Dyrness, “includes all behavior that is learned and transmitted by the symbols (rites, artifacts, language, etc) of a particular group and that grows out of certain ideas or assumptions that we call a worldview.”10 Rowe offers a detailed definition of culture, suggesting that culture is structured, writing, “Culture is not random but orderly, it occurs in sets of patterns.”11 Rowe further states that culture is social, meaning it happens in groups.12 “The basic aspects of culture,” according to Rowe, “seem invariably to include, in some form, beliefs, values, and behaviors (or customs).”13 And arguing what he feels is most important of culture, Rowe quotes the Willowbank Report’s definition, stating, “culture gives the people group ‘a sense of identity, dignity, security, and continuity.’”14

Culture is not entirely based on geographical area, as is often stereotyped, but adopted as a way of identification within a collection of people. As evangelists, missionaries, and church planters prepare to enter a culture that is drastically different than their own—like Russia, Swaziland, or China for example—they might reasonably focus on the great cultural differences. However, when the gospel communicator is entering an area with a similar culture, potentially a bordering state, the subtlety of cultural differences becomes more apparent. In arguing the role of government in cultural management, Kymlicka suggest that in any given society where freedom of expression is allowed, there is actually a marketplace of cultures. As individuals unconsciously select a subculture, the overarching culture of the community shifts, ebbs, and flows toward what the majority of individuals see as preferable cultural option.15 The Willowbank Report also suggests that more than one culture can exist in a geographic area but warns that rather than a grocery-style marketplace for the selection of culture, subcultures may actually war against one another. The report states, “Culture implies a measure of homogeneity. But if the unit is larger than the clan or small tribe, a culture will include within itself a number of subcultures, and subcultures of subcultures, within which a wide variety of diversity is possible. If the variations go beyond a certain limit, a counterculture will have come into being, and this may prove a destructive process.”16

Finally, Hesselgrave articulates that culture has layers. “At the core is worldview.”17 The closest layer to the core is the layer of values, specifically the value system of the community. “Then comes the institutional layer—education, law, marriage, and so forth,” writes Hesselgrave.18 The outer layer, as Hesselgrave explains, is the observable layer made up of artifacts and behaviors.19 Based on this definition, the core, that is, the worldview forms the curvature of all the other layers. Like an onion, the layers tightly hug the center; they are shaped by the inner most parts. Therefore, if one is seeking to communicate the gospel within the context of culture, one must address the core, the worldview.

Examining Utah, specifically the large LDS community, it is easy to see the outer layer. Sunday morning means the man puts on a white shirt and tie, maybe a suit jacket; his boys mirror his look. The women wear dresses. In the summer, they may walk to church because it is just around the corner. Many avoid the coffee pot at work. During the commute on the bus or train, many LDS faithful use the time to read the Book of Mormon, sometimes the Doctrine in Covenants, rarely the Bible. There are large families and high expectations that all the children will be baptized at age eight and the men will go on a two-year mission for their church when they turn nineteen. The Mormon has duties in the church and those who are considered worthy do regular work in LDS Temples. “Temple Square, the biggest tourist attraction in Salt Lake City,” writes Rowe, “not only serves as the symbolic center of the LDS Church (its equivalent of the Vatican or the worship center in Mecca) but also sits at the center of the city street system.”20 (The streets are number in all four directions according to their distance from the Temple with the Temple itself serving as 0. This patter is replicated in many other Utah cities, only the Stake Center often serves as ground zero.) July 24th is a holiday celebrated with more enthusiasm than the 4th of July. Ice cream is consumed in epic proportions, most boys are boy scouts, and tattoos and piercing are not as vogue as they are in the rest of the country. The local news often reports that Utah tops the charts for the most breast augmentation, prescription drug abuse, and depressed homemakers; but even if these statistics are not true, few Utahans seem to doubt the claims.21

Often, welling-meaning missionaries come to Utah for a short-term mission trip and evangelize to the observable outer layer with little success. But while a gospel communicator can discuss these aspects of life in Utah, gospel communication that addresses these layers does not reach the core of the culture. To get to the core, one must understand the Mormon worldview.

THE UTAH-MORMON WORLDVIEW
To some, the title of his section may seem almost silly, but to LDS members in and around Utah, there is a clear understanding that the Mormon living in Utah is somehow different than the Mormon living elsewhere. It has nothing to do with religious practice or doctrine. Instead, it is due to culture. Because there is a dominant community of people holding to an extremely similar worldview, the layers are able to grow large without influence from warring subcultures. Essentially, the zeal and expressive nature of the cultural majority is enjoyed more openly than by Utah-Mormons than those distant Mormons who might otherwise not fit as well within the layers of another cultural onion.

The core of the Utah-Mormon culture has to do with the blending of LDS doctrine and LDS history. This hybrid shapes the worldview. To effectively communicate the gospel in the culture of the Utah-Mormon culture, one does not necessarily have to master every tenant of Mormon doctrine or every significant Mormon event of the past two hundred years. One must simply understand the driving force behind the Mormon worldview. However, too often evangelistic materials will attempt to show Mormon doctrine in contrast with the Bible. McKeever and Johnson for example, write, “Many have sought a resource that compares the teaching of Mormon leaders, both past and present, with those of the Bible. We believe this book you hold in your hands [Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints] will meet this need.”22 McKeever and Johnson then offer eight pages of LDS history followed by nearly 300 pages of excellent theological comparisons. But regardless of the theological quality, the communication is still lost without an understanding of the culture. The gospel communicator is too often dismissed as “Bible bashing” as Rowe identifies it.23 To summarize Rowe, the Bible bash is the engaging in a comparative theological discussion. However, what a Christian might see as conversation, the Mormon sees as hostile attack. Why?

There are a number of reasons for the Mormon’s uneasiness with gospel communication. First, the in their early history, Mormons endured difficult persecution at the hands of Bible-believing Christians.24 This persecution left a “profound feeling of ‘We are a persecuted people’ in the bones of Latter-day Saints.”25 Consequently, there is still sensitivity in this area. Rowe warns, “Conversations that include any element of questioning by a non-Mormon, disparaging remarks, jokes that slight them—almost always these will be perceived as a form of attack on them for their faith, as just one more persecution, whether intended or not.”26 The second reason for the uneasiness has to do with the Mormon’s understanding of the Bible. While the LDS canon includes the Bible, it is not a trusted document. The 8th statement of the LDS Articles of Faith reads, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the world of God.”27 In addition, McConkie taught that the present day Christian is likely to be of the “Church of the Devil,” and this church has corrupted the Bible. He writes, “this church took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that it was ‘the mother of harlots.”28 McConkie draws his support from the Mormon book of First Nephi 13:24-42, a passage contained within the Book of Mormon. So one should be able to see the root of the uneasiness a Mormon feels when a Christian tries to argue against Mormonism with the Bible. This is one example of getting to the core of the culture.

Cutting through the various layers of culture—in order to reach the core—is not often an easy task in Utah. An examination of the doctrine is a useful start, as well as a review of LDS history; but it is not always so easy. A question must be asked: ‘Why?’ and the evangelists, missionary, or church planter must continually ask this question of the Mormon culture, removing layer after layer. At times, the Mormon will not even know the answer.

Utah’s fascination with bees serves as a good example. Beehives emblazon the highway signs. Salt Lake City’s baseball team is named the ‘Bees.’ Brigham Young, the 2nd LDS leader and man who brought the Mormons to Utah named his home the ‘Beehive House’ and the doorknobs of the Salt Lake Temple are shaped like hives. The original name of the territory was ‘Deseret,’ derived from the Book of Mormon (Ether 2:3), meaning, “honey bee.”29 Of the two daily newspapers, the LDS owned one is titled the ‘Deseret News.’ There is a beehive depicted on the state flag. So the observant gospel communicator should ask, “Why?” Simply asking a Utahan will usually yield some kind of answer about Utahans being an industrious people. Rowe observes that Utahans value a solid work ethic. He writes, “LDS folks become from childhood very responsible, entrepreneurial, industrious people. They seize opportunities and do not fear hard work, both in Church life and in the marketplace.”30 At this point, a value of the Utah culture has been identified—a strong work ethic. But a value is not at the core, it only closely wraps around it. The next question then is “Why is this a value of this culture?” Digging a little deeper, two answers surface and they are from the worldview ingredients of LDS history and doctrine. Turning to an LDS teaching guide titled, “Brigham Young: Building the Kingdom by Righteous Works,” which is still in use today, one learns that Young selected they symbol of the bee and the beehive to remind the pioneers and settlers that they would have to work hard in order to survive the harsh conditions. This lesson also asks question about God’s and “our own work,” with the answer being “To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” 31 And as one starts to understand the LDS religion, one will see that there are many works required in an effort to obtain righteousness. On this doctrine, McConkie writes, “By believing the truths of salvation, repenting of his sins, and being baptized in water and of the Spirit, the seeker after salvation places himself on the strait an narrow path which leads to eternal live. (2 Ne. 31.) Thereafter his progress up the path is achieved by the performance of good works.”32 From an obsession with beehives to insight to a worldview issue, questioning helps remove the more shallow layers of culture to get to the core. With this now in mind, the gospel communicator has a better understanding of one aspect of the Mormon’s worldview. And understanding the cultural aspect at its core will make the communicator far more effective in bring his or her message.

In looking at another example, one can observe that Mormons do not drink coffee, tea, and alcoholic beverages, and they do not smoke. What is observed is behavior, an outer layer aspect of culture. Living in Utah, one will notice a strict regulation of alcoholic beverages and smoking. The grocery stores only sell beer under 3.2% ABV. Higher gravity beer, wine, and spirits must be purchased in state owned and operated liquor stores, which are few. The question is “why?” It could be that as one works though the question, he or she learns that health is a value driven by some aspect of the Mormon worldview. However, health is not the case this time. As it turns out, Doctrine and Covenants 89 prohibits, the use of tobacco and the drinking of hot drinks, wine, and strong drink. The promise of this passage is that one will find wisdom and greater physical health. But there is more behind D & C 89. McConkie outlines that this passage requires LDS members to “abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor.”33 He further states, “Abstinence from these four things has been accepted by the Church as a measuring rod to determine in part the personal worthiness of church members. When decisions are made relative to the granting of temple recommends or approving brethren for church positions or ordinations, inquiry is made relative to these four items.”34 A recommend is required to enter the Temple. Temple ceremonies are required for a family to be married and together for eternity—one of the highest and most valuable aspects of Mormonism for its adherents. Being married in the temple and “sealed” to family for all eternity is also a requirement to enter the highest and most sought after level of heaven. In light of this doctrine, it is much easer to see the driving force behind the action of abstinence of coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol. (Incidentally, giving a full tithe is also required to obtain a Temple recommend.) Once again, the worldview aspect driving the other aspects of culture has to do with a works based religion. The Mormon is placed on a path but must work to reach salvation (or so he or she believes). In this case, coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol in-and-of-themselves are seen as an evil or sin with the ability to bar one from heaven, and therefore these items are heavily regulated with the Utah community.

While only a few specific aspects of the Utah-Mormon culture were examined here, the methodology should be apparent. The steps are to make observations and ask “Why?” The key is to continue to pull back layers until the worldview is reached. Once the worldview is understood, the gospel communicator can share the gospel message within the context of culture and with a clear understanding of the worldview held by the culture.

NOW IT’S TIME TO COMMUNICATE
Once the evangelist, missionary, or church planter has asked the “Why?” question and pealed back the surface layers, it is time to communicate the gospel message to the Utah-Mormon culture. This culture is likely carries subtle differences from which the communicator was sent. What should this look like? While each instance of communication is going to be different depending upon aspects of the worldview, the personalities involved, and the work of the Holy Spirit, only basic guidelines will be offered here.

First, as already indicated, the “Bible bash” is ineffective. The gospel communicator will only run headlong into deeply held convictions shaped by worldview when he or she attempts to share the gospel message with a Utah-Mormon by demonstrating where Mormon doctrine is in disagreement with the Bible. “This problem occurs,” says Rowe, “when we view Mormons as two-dimensional information processors who simply need to have their bad information replaced by our good information.”35 Instead, the evangelist, missionary, and church planter should pray for opportunities to show the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible in positive manor and in consideration of the worldview that shapes the culture’s ideas of the Bible. And when these opportunities surface, the information should be shared to people, with layered culture, not ‘two-dimensional information processors.’

Once the brakes have been put on the typical American approach to evangelizing the Mormon culture, the second step in communicating the gospel in the cultural dominated by Mormonism, is to treat the effort as if one has entered into a cross-culture mission. Elmer’s cross-cultural servanthood model offers an excellent guide. Elmer teaches that first step is openness. “Openness with people of another culture,” writes Elmer, “requires that you are willing to step out of your comfort zone to initiate and sustain relationships in a context of cultural differences.”36 Too often missionaries and church planters come to Utah hoping to change the community but they greatly lack this openness. From openness, according to Elmer, grows acceptance. This is not an acceptance of the culture’s worldview or beliefs about God, but instead that the Mormon feels welcome and safe around the gospel communicator.37 Next comes trust. At some point after acceptance, the Mormon may start to trust the communicator and feel that the communicator actually values him or her as person.38 The next step is learning, and it is here where the evangelist, missionary, and church planter need to continually be asking “why?” It is at this stage that the gospel communicator begins to really peal back the layers to get to the core of the culture. And in doing the hard work of learning what shapes the culture, the communicator will achieve the next step of cross-culture servanthood—understanding. Of understanding Elmer writes, “You can’t understand another person until you have learned from them and, eventually, with them. A learning attitude signals humility and a willingness to identify with the people.”39 No longer will the Utah-Mormon be seen as an information processor with bad information; no longer will the subtleties of the culture seem so subtle. Now, the entire shape of the culture will make sense. Pathways will present themselves to communicate in a manner that is not offensive or abrasive to the culture. Bridges will begin to fall in place so the communicator can address the issues at the core and engage them with the gospel. This kind of gospel communication will actually bring transformation to the outer layers of the culture. And at this point, when an understanding is gained, true Christ-like servanthood will come naturally.

Achieving the first step is fast; it is just a matter of putting a halt to a communication method that actually does more harm to the Utah-Mormon culture than good. Yet, on any day of the week there are men and woman standing around Temple Square with signs and tracts. They shout Scripture and try to tell passersby that their top religious leader is a liar. Nobody stops to listen. Still, busloads of teenagers pour into Salt Lake ready to place DVD movies about the Bible verses the Book of Mormon on front doors, material that usually goes straight into the trash as anti-Mormon material from the “Church of the Devil.” These Christians come to communicate the gospel with good intentions, but they do not understand the second step of this communication; and therefore, they are much less effective in their effort to share the gospel. If they would take the time and do the hard work to understand the culture and it subtle differences, they would be able to share the gospel in a context within the culture, not against it.

For most evangelists, missionaries, and church planters, reaching into the Utah-Mormon culture for Christ means living with and among the people for long periods. It means working and playing along side Mormons. It is about getting to know Mormons and establishing trust and acceptance. It is about taking the time and doing the work to understand the Utah-Mormon culture. And it living among the people as servants, the gospel communicators begin to see just how the culture communicates in meaningful way. Part of the worldview (which has not been addressed in this post) is a strong respect for personal testimony and shared experience. As the cultural layers are pulled back, the communicator begins to see the significant of personal testimony and the ‘Mormonese’ in which it is shared. The gospel communicator begins to grow comfortable with this language just as a missionary in a foreign country does with the non-English language. Over time, the gospel communicator develops a healthy since of need to reach the core of the culture beyond the desire to count the numbers of souls saved, and than he or she prays for opportunities to communicate the message of life-changing hope and Truth deep into the center of the culture.

CONCLUSION
It is the desire of this author to share the gospel with the Utah-Mormon culture. I have lived in Utah for eleven years and am only now starting to develop the necessary understanding of the core of this culture, its worldview. Acceptance is just beginning to happen. Although Utah is one of the fifty states, and it looks like every other state with its corporate businesses and typical American bustle, just under the surface is a foreign subculture deeply in need of the transformation of gospel of Jesus.

The examination of the Utah-Mormon culture in this post only scratches the surface; entire volumes could and should be written on the topic. However, it is my hope that the methodology of understanding subculture differences was presented in such a way that they may be applied not only in Utah, but also in any other effort to communicating the gospel with people of similar cultures. While this post is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion on the matter, I hope it encourages readers to continue to study the methodology of effective cross-cultural and subcultural evangelism and servanthood. It is also my prayer that God will call more harvesters to Utah, a dry part of the vineyard, not to come for a week and ignorantly shout and the lost, but instead to live and work among them, understand them and be accepted by them, so that the gospel may be communicated to the very heart of the culture, so some may be saved.


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Association of Religious Data Archives, “China-Tibet,” http://www.thearda.com/
internationalData/countries/Country_51_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010].

Association of Religious Data Archives, “United Arab Emirates,” http://www.thearda.com/
internationalData/countries/Country_232_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010].

Association of Religious Data Archives, “United States: Denominational Groups, 2000,”
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010].

Association of Religious Data Archives, “Utah: Denominational Groups, 2000,”
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010].

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Index. Salt Lake City: The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Brigham Young: Building the Kingdom by
Righteous Works.” Gospel Library Lessons,
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63eb76797
8c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM
1000004d82620aRCRD [accessed July 8, 2010].

Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility. Downers
Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2006.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,
Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics.
Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

Hesselgrave, David J. Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond. Grand
Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000.

Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002.

Lausanne Occasional Paper 2. “The Willowbank Report: Consultation on Gospel and Culture.”
Lausanne Committee for World Evangelication. 1978

McKeever, Bill, and Eric Johnson. Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-Day
Saints. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000.

McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.

McRaney, Will. The Art of Personal Evangelism: Sharing Jesus in a Changing Culture.
Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

Rowe, David L. I [Love] Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints. Grand
Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005.




1  David Hesselgrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000), 28-29. 
2 Will McRaney, The Art of Personal Evangelism: Sharing Jesus in a Changing Culture (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 5. 
3 Association of Religious Data Archives, “Utah: Denominational Groups, 2000,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010]. 
4 Association of Religious Data Archives, “United States: Denominational Groups, 2000,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010]. 
5 Although the LDS church argues that their faith is “Christian,” for the purposes of this post, the term “Christian” will apply to all faith structures that hold to a Trinitarian view of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and believe that Jesus is the exclusive Savior of the world. 
6 Association of Religious Data Archives, “China-Tibet,” http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_51_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010]. 
7 Association of Religious Data Archives, “United Arab Emirates,” http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_232_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010]. 
8 Association of Religious Data Archives, “Utah: Denominational Groups, 2000,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010]. 
9 Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 227. 
10 Elwell, 227. 
11 David Rowe, I [Love] Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005), 25. 
12 Rowe, 25. 
13 Rowe, 26. 
14 Rowe, 26. 
15 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 244-252. 
16 Lausanne Occasional Paper 2. “The Willowbank Report: Consultation on Gospel and Culture,” (Lausanne Committee for World Evangelication, 1978), 4/50. 
17 Hesselgrave, 145. 
18 Hesselgrave, 145. 
19 Hesselgrave, 145. 
20 Rowe, 30-31. 
21 This author’s observations of Utah’s culture come from personal observation living in and around Salt Lake City for eleven years. 
22 Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000), 9. 
23 Rowe, 17-22. 
24 Rowe, 43-47. 
25 Rowe, 44. 
26 Rowe, 44. 
27 The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535-541, verse 8, (emphasis added). 
28 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 138. 
29 The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Index (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 78. 
30 Rowe, 33. 
31 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Brigham Young: Building the Kingdom by Righteous Works,” Gospel Library Lessons, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63eb767978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD [accessed July 8, 2010]. 
32 McConkie, 328. 
33 McConkie, 845. 
34 McConkie, 845. 
35 Rowe, 80. 
36 Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2006), 151. 
37 Elmer, 151. 
38 Elmer, 151. 
39 Elmer, 150-151. 


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** Photo by flickr.com user alh1 is registered under a Creative Commons license. 

Is it 'Okay' to Get Divorced?

Not too long ago, I was asked "Is it okay to get divorced?"  This is a huge question.

We first need to ask what is meant by "okay." If okay means entry or exclusion from heaven, I want to be very clear: getting a divorce or staying married has no baring on entrance to heaven or hell or one's ability to pray to God.  Even one sin without Christ's grace will keep a person out of heaven. Faith and surrender to Jesus Christ, who he says he is, and in his death and resurrection dictates entering heaven or being cast to hell.  This is the key to entry in to heaven, not any work, like staying married. Without Christ, even one sin is "not okay." However, we all sin (act in ways that are contrary to God's wishes for us), a lot. If we need to discuss this in more detail, please feel free to contact me.

So then the real question is if you were considering divorce, and God were sitting with us having coffee, how would he advise you in your situation. If this is you, I recommend you put lots of time to honest prayer, just as if he were sitting with you having coffee. Ask him what you might do to improve your marriage. Ask him to show you areas in your own life that may need repentance.  Ask him how you can show your spouse grace.  Ask him to fix your marriage. After you've had that conversation for a while, and if you feel that his involvement and advice is making no difference, ask him why. If you are already praying about this, pray more.

In the Bible, God presents his ideal. His ideal is that people remain married. And if not for humanity's ugly brokenness, we'd all meet this ideal with little effort. But because of the mess that we are, we have to work at it--some much more than others. The entire Bible is full of stories about people trying to work together in some kind of relationship. Paul writes letters to entire churches trying to help them have healthy relationships in work, play, marriage, etc. Obviously, it's hard and it's messy to meet this ideal.

God wants us to meet his ideal, but we won't, we can't. We are too messed up. This is why Christ died. So now we can find grace in our mess, through Jesus.

The overly religious people of Jesus' day, the Pharisees, came to Jesus and asked him if it was okay for anybody to get a divorce. (You can read about this in Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-11.) Here's how it went down (I'm greatly paraphrasing):
Religious people: Is it against God's Law to divorce your wife for any reason?

Jesus: Haven't you read the Law? [He's referring to the Scriptures, specifically to what the Jews called The Law, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, written by Moses. These 5 books include lots of stories; it is not just a book of rules like we think of the law today]. God created men and women to be together. A man should leave his family and get married. He should hold fast to his wife. [Paul once wrote that a man should love his wife like Christ loves the church, and Christ died for the church!] God has joined them together so nobody should separate them. (See Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, Ephesians 5:23-33.)

[Jesus pointed out the ideal and expressed that it should be taken seriously.]

Religious people: Oh really, than why did Moses say a man can divorce his wife? [They were trying to trap Jesus or demonstrate that he was teaching counter to the Scriptures.]

Jesus: It's because you have a hard heart. [This is his way of pointing out our ugly, brokenness.] But it was not intended to be this way from the beginning. But you should know, anyone who gets divorced outside of infidelity will commit adultery.

Jesus also explained that even the very act of looking with lust at another person is committing adultery with that person (Matthew 5:28). I am not saying that committing adultery is okay with God; in fact, the opposite is true and society's definition of adultery and God's definition are quite different.  However, you should understand how it's being discussed in the Bible. And ultimately, the religious people were asking if a person will still be okay with God if they got divorced. Jesus is our intermediary so we can always be right with God through Jesus, divorced or not.

That being said, divorce is against the ideal; it's against God's desires for us. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The Bible teaches that we should not take the matter lightly; and if you are considering divorce, you should try at all cost to work through the messiness.

Maybe this is not the answer you wanted to hear, and that's okay.  I realize I didn't give a simple yes or no, but that's because it is not a simple matter. I suggest that you go back to that table at the coffeehouse and talk with God often.  Read his Word in the Bible.  Pray. Communicate with your spouse. And pray together.

*Photo taken by Flickr user, jcoterhals, is registered under a Creative Commons license.

Self-Help Marriage Books

I just read and evaluated a book on marriage for a class.  With all due respect to those who have tried, a book on making a marriage successful is usually a gross over simplification, and often constructed on a sandy foundation. At best, it builds on no foundation; at worst, it elevates a successful marriage into a position above God. The reason has everything to do with the focus. Too often, the mindset is that two people, through self-regulated behavior, can build and maintain a positive relationship with one another. While it is true that relationship management is the reason for many successful marriages, it is not how God teaches on marriage.

Dr. John Gottman has contributed to the body of nearly secular self-help marriage books. His book, Why Marriages Succeed and or Fail is informative and helpful but still misses God’s primary starting point of all successful marriages. It doesn't build upon a solid foundation.

Here's what often goes overlooked, even by many Christian authors and publishers: Genesis outlines God’s creation of the covenant relationship between a man and a woman--marriage. He created it, and therefore he alone gets to define it. In making man and woman in the image of the triune God, men and women are created to be in interpersonal relationship with God, but also with one another. Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh,” showing the parting of one relationship in order to enter into a physically and spiritually profound marital union. Jesus builds upon our understanding of this union saying, “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6, ESV). Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is a sin for a man and woman to become “one flesh” out side of marriage, demonstrating that there is more than the mere physical in the act of sexual relations. And Romans 6:2 indicates that the marriage covenant is a life-long covenant.

But much of the New Testament biblical teaching on marriage is actually used as symbolism to either show Christ’s Kingly reign, a proper relationship between Christ and man, or the relationship between Christ and the Church. This symbolism often uses the marriage ceremony or wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14, Matthew 25:7-12, Luke 22:27-30, John, 2:1-12, John 2:28-29, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:23-32, and Revelation 19:7-9). One might ask how the symbolism of the wedding and Christ relates to the marriage between a man and a woman today, and the answer is found in understanding the relationships. The Bible clearly demonstrates Christ’s love for the Church, even that he died for her. And man is called to love his bride that much, that is, as much as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:23-33). In addition, Paul says that a man should also love his wife as he loves himself (Ephesians 5:28-30). With that said, it is clear that the Bible holds marriage in a high position, not to be taken lightly. (It is also clear that the marriage or the family unit should not be worshiped as an idol as some do, but this is a discussion for another time.)

As God calls men and women to himself and sanctifies them in preparation of the glory of Kingdom living, we find a need for grace, care, and love in our relationships, especially our marital relationship. Very few of the issues that the marriage self-help books deal with will still be issues after a married couple submits their lives and relationship to God’s grace, care, and love. Often, when the Holy Spirit is working in a marriage and the couple is in submission to God’s will, Gottman’s style of simple self assessment testing and marriage tactics seems silly. In Christ, the married couple comes to understand the difficulty of marriage and the amazing power of God in the marriage covenant. An through this understanding, they can have a beautiful, loving marriage that teaches them more about the nature and character of God.  This is not to say that a couple will never need counseling or help in the marriage, but that they should always keep God's rightful position over their marriage, rather than incorrectly putting the newest trend of self-help in God’s seat.

*Photo by Keith Park, registered under a Creative Commons license. 

Jesus in Public Prayer

Introduction. Occasionally pastors are asked to offer a prayer—usually an invocation or benediction—in a public, secular environment. This is especially true in government settings and a typical duty of a military chaplain. This raises some questions for the Christian minister. Does the Christian minister have the right to pray a specifically “Christian” prayer in these settings? Can a Christian pray without closing the prayer in Jesus’ name? And finally, is there any reason a Christian minister or chaplain should agree to publicly praying in an ecumenical environment where the mention of Jesus is frowned upon or prohibited? These are good questions for the American pastor or chaplain serving in the environment of recent court decisions, the Establishment Clause, the high wall of separation between church and state, and the courts of pubic appeal.

The Minister’s Right. In light of Supreme Court cases like ENGLE v. VITELE, the Christian minister should not assume the right to pray however he wishes when invited to pray in a secular government setting. If the minister is unwilling to remain ecumenical (if requested or expected to do so), he should decline the invitation to pray. The military requires a chaplain to agree to these terms before accepting a commission. Despite how the minister may feel about this, he must remember the words of Jesus, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20, ESV). The minister should be thankful that he is invited to pray in a secular, government environment at all; but he should also pray that one day all will pray in Jesus’ name. The minister’s focus should be on prayer, teaching, evangelism, and service, leaving the distractions of these societal difficulties to the lawyers and politicians (unless of course it comes up for a vote). However, if the minister is invited to pray, he should always feel that he has the right to clarification; and a minister should never be required to pray in this fashion if he is uncomfortable doing so. The military chaplain however, should be prepared to face persecution if he chooses to take this stand.

In Jesus’ Name. Many times throughout the Bible, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray in his name (John 14:13-14, 15:16, 16:23, Ephesians 5:20). But as Grudem says, this instruction “does not simply mean adding the phrase ‘in Jesus’ name’ after every prayer” (Grudem 1994, 379). He continues by arguing that it is not a magic formula for our prayers (Ibid, 379). Instead, praying in Jesus’ name is praying in and with Jesus’ authority. While it is wise to verbally declare that a prayer is said in the authority of Jesus, it is not a Biblical requirement. In fact, of the prayers recorded in the Bible (Matthew 6:9-13, Acts 1:24-25, 4:24-30, 7:59, 9:13-14, 10:14, Revelations 6:10, 22:20), none of them end “in Jesus’ name” (Ibid, 379). In light of these biblical prayers, it seems that an occasional prayer (in a non-Christian government setting) that ends with a simple “Amen” is acceptable.

Why Would a Minister Agree? While ministers and chaplains should hope and pray for a day when everybody makes specifically Christian prayers, reality says this is not the case today. The advantages of accepting an invitation to pray in a non-Christian environment are proximity and presence. Ministers do not often have the access they might have by accepting the invitation to pray. Later, someone the Holy Spirit is convicting may approach the minister for help. And by praying, a reminder is posted that there is indeed a higher power whom which we make supplication. Given title or introduction, people will likely know that the minister is Christian. Chaplains are granted an all-important proximity to soldiers, but only because they are willing to occasionally restrict their language choices in order to pray in the public non-Christian setting. The same is expected of non-Christian chaplains. If Christians refused to pray in this manner, they would be barred access to soldiers, the more significant ministry for the chaplain. The weakness however, is that many will hear this prayer and not understand the importance or necessity of Jesus. This work will likely take more than this single occasion. And a threat comes in the form of compliancy. As the Christian minister makes one concession, there could be expectations that others will be made too. The Christians of the first century went to their deaths for the name of Jesus and actually became a greater witness than if they were to make concessions for access. This should be weighted when making the decision to pray or not, when contemplating the acceptance of a chaplaincy or not.

References:
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** Photo of  Stained Glass by Toby Hudson and is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

Light in a Dark Time: Hope at the Funeral

Jesus was dead and his body had been laid in a tomb. On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James’ mother, and some other women came to the tomb to tend to Jesus’ dead body and morn. When they arrived, they found that the stone was rolled away from the tomb door and there were two angels there. The angels said to the women, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but he has risen” (Luke 24:5-6, ESV). It is only in Christ’s resurrection that hope is found. As one sits at a funeral before a dead loved one, he or she must realize that we are all dead in our trespasses; we have all committed high treason against God, punishable by death. But the good news of the gospel is the hope found in Christ. Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and every one who lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26, ESV). Romans 6:4-5 paints a beautiful picture of this death-resurrection relationship, reading, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like this, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (ESV). Therefore, if the loved one believed in Christ, there should be joy because of Christ. The one who believes should cling to this hope, and those who are simply dead without hope, must hear the gospel. A funeral should honor the dead, but it is of little value if there is no message of hope, no message of the gospel.

“There is no pastoral ministry,” writes Criswell, “that offers the open door of spiritual opportunity as does the presence of death in the home. [. . .] This is the hour when the loving and caring pastor is needed most” (Criswell 1980, 295). It is in the difficult time of death when the living are grasping for something of God. It may be that they have questions, or it could be that they—now being faced with death—are looking for some kind of hope. They not only expect the pastor to know how to find the hope that overcomes death, but they expect him to share it. Tragedy would be to remain silent or go the way of secular morning. A funeral that only serves to honor the dead does nothing to serve the living, but the funeral that shares the message can honor the dead and care for the living.

Funerals are discussed throughout the Bible, but little is said of the funeral itself. Genesis 50 states that Joseph’s father was embalmed and the Egyptians mourned for him for seventy days. There was a precession of chariots. Israel was buried. Deuteronomy 14:1 prohibited the Israelites from mutilating themselves or shaving their heads as a form of morning through funeral rites. There was often a special dress for the funeral, typically sackcloth, and sometimes even ashes or dirt on the head (see Isaiah 32:11 for example). Luke, chapter 7 tells of a funeral procession that Jesus came across in Nain. It is written that a “considerable crowd from the town was with her [the mother of the dead son]” (Luke 7:12, ESV), suggesting that some funerals were well attended. And devout men, those who knew and understood the hope for Stephen, still wept for him at his funeral (Acts 8:2).

Today funerals are diverse. Some funerals are well organized with rehearsed benedictions and eulogies, while others are haphazard, allowing any in attendance to say a few words. Sometimes there is music, sometimes poetry reading. Special ceremonial honors are bestowed on some based of factors such as military or police service. But the most important aspect of the funeral is the message of hope. Without it, death abounds; but with it, the dead may leave the funeral with hope, alive in Christ.

References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.

* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** Painting: "Dead Christ" by Mantegna Andrea, in the public domain. Photo by Beverly and Pack is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

The Lord's Supper

Introduction. Acts 2:42-47 states that the believers of the early Church met together daily to preach and teach, pray, worship, and break bread (also see Acts 5:42 and Hebrews 10:25). They were following the example and instruction of Jesus who instituted the rite and symbolic meal (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20). In a letter to the Corinthians, Paul confirms that the Church continued to share the Lord’s Supper (also called communion or the sacrament) together in remembrance (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). And in fact, Paul quotes Jesus saying, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25, ESV). Therefore, if we are to follow Christ’s example and join in this tradition, we should understand the meaning and symbolism of the Lord’s Supper, communion, sacrament, or even the Eucharist as it is sometimes called.

What is it; what does it mean? In the simplest of definitions, the Lord’s Supper is bread and wine, shared communally in an intentional ceremony, done as instructed by the Bible. In practice, it comes in many forms, such as wafers, unleavened, or loaves, wine or non-fermented juice, handed to all or torn form the loaf, passed in baskets or dipped in the cup, and so on. Jesus said the bread symbolizes his body that is broken and the cup represents his blood that was spilled. And as stated above, the rite has many names. In their book, Doctrine, Driscoll and Breshears write,
“The real issue is not the name but the fourfold meaning of the sacrament itself. It is a dramatic presentation that (1) reminds us in a powerful manner of the death of Jesus Christ in our place for our sins; (2) calls Christians to put our sin to death in light of the fact that Jesus died for our sins and compels us to examine ourselves and repent of sin before partaking; (3) shows the unity of God’s people around the person and work of Jesus; and (4) anticipates our participation in the marriage supper of the Lamb when his kingdom comes in its fullness. Practically speaking, Communion is to be considered as participation in the family meal around a table rather than as a sacrifice upon an alter” (Driscoll 2010, 326-327).
Both Grudem and Erickson also discuss the multi-faceted meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Grudem says, “The meaning of the Lord’s Supper is complex, rich, and full” Grudem 1994, 990). He identifies seven things symbolized by the Lord’s Supper: Christ’s death, our participation in the benefits of Christ’s death, spiritual nourishment, the unity of believers, Christ’s affirmation for his love for us, Christ’s affirmation that the blessing of salvation is reserved for those who believe, and our affirmation of a faith in Christ (991). Erickson on the other hand identifies aspects agreed upon by all believers and points of disagreement. Significantly, most agree that it is established by Christ, should be repeated, is a form of proclamation, provides a spiritual benefit to the partaker, should be restricted to only followers of Christ, and that there is and aspect of Church unity (Erickson 1998, 1117-1121). The disagreements are many. While some hold that there is a physical presence of Christ in the bread and cup, many protestant and evangelical positions see the Lord’s Supper as a commemorative act that serves to fulfill the many aspects covered by Driscoll and Breshears, Grudem, and Erickson.

How should we do it and how often? There are many different ways to present and partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the most important thing is that however it is done, it is within the instruction that Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. And regarding how often the Lord’s Supper should be shared, the early Church shared and partook daily. Calvin answers this question well, stating, “What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that is was not instituted to be received once a year and that perfunctorily (as is not commonly the custom); but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith; stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying toward each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ” (Calvin 2008, 929).


References:
-  Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson, 2008.
-  Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
-  Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton, Ill:
Crossway, 2010.
-  Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.
-  Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

** Photo is the property of flickr.com user, WELS.net and is registered under a Creative Commons license.  

42% of Protestants Say Mormons are Christian?

September 24, 2010
LDS friends:  I realize the content below may have an upsetting potential.  Before reading, you might guess that this as an "anti-Mormon" attack of some sort.  If this is the case, or you're already uneasy about the topic, I ask that you please continue reading.  Then, if after you've read this post you feel the same as now, please feel free to e-mail me, call me, or get in touch with me here.  Let's chat.  Come over for dinner; even bring some LDS missionaries if you'd like.  Clearly we have some theological differences, but let's have a friendly conversation about them.   
The Pew Research Center recently released an article titled, "Glenn Beck, Christians and Mormons" that reported that 42% of Protestants say that Mormons--that is, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)--are Christians.  52% of Catholics agree.  What's interesting is how quickly the argument will center on inclusion in Christianity before any effort is made to agree upon the meaning of the word "Christian."

When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.

In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis argued that the word "Christian" was becoming a meaningless word.  "Now, " wrote Lewis, "if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word."(1)  He first made this argument in a radio broadcast in 1943; how true his statement remains in 2010.

It doesn't really matter if Mormons are identified as Christian if we can't even determine the meaning of the word today.  Therefore, I believe it might prove beneficial to discuss who is and is not a Christian.  Then, we can see if the LDS theology falls inside our outside the definition.

 The word "Christian" comes from the Greek word, Christianos.  Its first appearance in the biblical narrative is found in Acts 11:26.  Acts 11:25-26 reads: "So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians" (ESV).

Later, Paul was sharing his faith and theology with King Agrippa and Agrippa's response to Paul was, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?" (Acts 26:28, ESV).  While this passage does not exactly tell us what a Christian is, it does demonstrate that the term being used in Antioch was used wide enough that Agrippa knew it.

Some say that at the point we read the name Christian in the Bible, it was used by non-Christians as a derogatory term.  Correct or not, Peter not only uses the term, he instructs his readers not to be ashamed of the name if they are suffering as a Christian (1 Peter 4:16).

At this point, I could work through about 1,950 years of Church history and belief, but instead I'll simply leave it at this:  The early church wrote many confessions and creeds to determine what beliefs were required in order to be Christian.  They studied and debated and studied some more.  They discussed and prayed and fasted and discussed the issues some more.  Theologians wrote books.  My LDS friends might try to argue that this all happened after the Apostles and therefore happened in what they call an "apostate" time.  However, this conversation started with Jesus, and we see it get much more serious with the Apostles.

At one point, John approached Jesus and said, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us" (Mark 9:38, ESV).  John's concern seems to be that someone outside the Twelve (not hanging around with them and Jesus) was using the name of Jesus.  Jesus responds by saying, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:38-39, ESV).  It is here that the Mormon is quick to point out that Jesus is part of the name of their church, and also that they invoke the name of Jesus in their religious practices.  This is a fari point; however, we must also remain mindful of Jesus' words in Matthew 7:21-23, which in the ESV translation reads,
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
In Acts 11 and 15, and in Galatians, we read that there was a group of people who felt that in order to be Christian, one had to practice the Jewish covenant rite of circumcision.  An argument was played out by the Apostles.  Was circumcision to be a requirement of Christianity?  What practice is in and what is out?  Who is in and who is out?  What belief is required.  Who are the Christians?  Often Paul has to defend himself as a Christian and Apostle because there we some that didn't see him as a such.

This issue is not new.

These arguments serve to help us understand and define boundaries.  If there is no line, there is no in or out.  The Mormons understand this well because they have 13 Articles of Faith that build boundaries.  Because I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God (from the 8th Article), I cannot call myself Mormon.  It would be wrong for me to do so.

Therefore, by all of the discussions, arguments, and studies among the Christian Church over the past 2,000 years, below is what is generally understood as minimum requirements for Christianity.  I argue with Church history and say that being unable to accept all of these statements as they are written places a person out of bounds.  At a minimum, can Mormons agree with these boundaries?   Can we even come to agreement on the definition?  (What even further complicates the matter is that between Mormons and traditionally accepted Christians, the words in these boundaries and definitions also need definitions and agreement in order to come to an understanding.) 
1. A Christian must understand that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were never created or ever had a beginning, nor will they ever have an end.

2. A Christian must understand that all things other than the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were created by God (which is the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit), thus mankind has a beginning and a Creator.  
 
3. A Christian must accept that he or she is a sinner and that God will not permit anyone who has ever sinned (which is all of mankind) to enter into an eternal life in heaven with him apart from the saving work done for us by Jesus Christ. 

4. A Christian must understand that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified in our place (taking on punishment due to all of the sins of the world, across all time), was buried, rose again to physical life three days later, and after 40 days, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. 

5. A Christian must understand that in order to have eternal life with Jesus in heaven, the Christian must repent of his or her sins and believe in Jesus Christ as he is written about and revealed in the Bible.

6. A Christian must understand that there is no other way to enter heaven but through repentance and belief in Jesus Christ, because of his absolutely completed and sufficient work. 

7.  A Christian cannot deny that Jesus was and is both fully deity and fully man.

8. A Christian cannot deny the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all equal and of the same substance.
I speculate that most Mormons do not agree with some of these statements.  I hope I am wrong, but I'm also guessing they will not even agree that this is the definition of what beliefs are necessary to be called Christian.

Bruce McConkie, a prominent Mormon, wrote of Christianity in his book Mormon Doctrine, saying, "True and acceptable Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel [referring to those who accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God], and a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom."(2)  McConkie defines Christendom as "That portion of the world in which so-called Christianity prevails [...]. The term also applies to the whole body of supposed Christian believers; as now constituted this body is properly termed apostate Christendom."(3) If Mormons agree with McConkie, who seems to claim that Mormons are the only Christians and all others are not, then Mormons will likely still not be under the tent of traditionally accepted Christianity.

If you would like to discuss any of this in greater detail or if you are interested in learning more about Christ or Christianity, please feel free to contact me.


Related Articles:
"What is Mormon Doctrine?"
"It Doesn't Matter Which God?"
"Are All Christians Believers?"
"Mainstreaming Mormonism"
"An Analysis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism)"


1. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: NY, HarperCollins, 1980), XIV. 
2.  Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, UT: Publishers Press, 1993), 132.
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, UT: Publishers Press, 1993), 131. 

*Photo by Phillip Ingham is registered under a creative commons license.